On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Lloyd Allison wrote:
> I would like to have a ``class Function'' which has the
> operators ``$'', ``.'', etc. and *most* particularly ``'',
yes yes yes I want this too.
When presenting definitions in Haskell (to myself, or to students),
I don't like being forced to decide
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:16:16 -0800 (PST)
Hal Daume III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't have "invisible functions".
The only thing that should be done is to invent a special name for the
juxtaposition operator (or just to use $), and to let (->) become an
instance of the "Function" class.
In a message dated 10/28/2002 5:55:05 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An Online Bibliography of Haskell Research
http://haskell.readscheme.org/index.html
I appreciate the kind remarks regarding my site!
I would like to mention that tonight I have uploaded
a new version of t
Yes, so I've done something similar. It is, however, not possible to give
"f x" a meaning other than simply "apply the value x to the function
f". You can't have "invisible functions".
As for making -> an instance, you should be able to just write:
class MyC f where
g :: f a b -> a -> b
Almost certainly this is either
. easy and obvious or
. unnecessary or
. impossible
for some a well-known reason. Which is it please? ...
I would like to have a ``class Function'' which has the
operators ``$'', ``.'', etc. and *most* particularly ``'',
so that one can define sub-classes of F
Very nice indeed.
Bill Halchin
>From: Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Haskell Online Bibliography
>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:54:28 +0100
>
>An Online Bibliography of Haskell Research
>http://haskell.readscheme.org/index.html
>
>I didn't see this ann
> It's unfortunate that the exception classifier functions differ
> between GHC and Hugs, even where capabilities overlap.
> justIoErrors :: Exception -> Maybe IOError
> justHugsExceptions :: Exception -> Maybe HugsException
> Would greater commonality be possible?
Yes, but it'll
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | (1) In the first section, in:
> |
> | instance (cx, cx') => Ci (T u1 ... uk) where { d }
> |
> | the use of "(cs, cs')" is a bit loose (that is, suggestive rather than
> | precise syntax). One can't (according to the report, though GHC seems
> to
> | allow it) ha
It's unfortunate that the exception classifier functions differ between
GHC and Hugs, even where capabilities overlap.
GHC has:
ioErrors :: Exception -> Maybe IOError
arithExceptions :: Exception -> Maybe ArithException
errorCalls :: Exception -> Maybe String
dynExceptions :: Exce
An Online Bibliography of Haskell Research
http://haskell.readscheme.org/index.html
I didn't see this announced; sorry if I missed it and this is a duplicate.
Kudos to Jim Bender for a nice site!
--
Frank
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
The 2002 Haskell Workshop proceedings are now available
online from the ACM Digital Library:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/hw2002/
Cheers,
Manuel
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
*
* We apologize, if you receive this message more than once. *
* We apologize, if this message does not concern you. *
*
Academic Research with Industrial Focus
For the B
12 matches
Mail list logo
